This Is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: Iraqi Defeat Edition

I don’t know how many times I have to say this before the United States military industrial complex and its political benefactors get it. There’s only one way to make a society safe from tyranny/fascism/dictatorial control/whatever: arm the citizens. It worked right here in the good old US or A. It’s still working now. And it would have worked in Iraq — if the post-Saddam government and its American enablers hadn’t decided that disarmament was the dish of the day, back in the day. As one of our previous contest winners so aptly reported. And now, as Reverend Wright famously pronounced to President Obama’s former congregation, the chickens have come home to roost-a. In the wake of the impending Islamic extremist takeover of Iraq . . .

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday offered weapons and equipment to citizens who volunteer to fight Islamist militants, hours after the government forces lost the northern city of Mosul to the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).

In a statement broadcast on state television, Maliki said the cabinet has “created a special crisis cell to follow up on the process of volunteering and equipping and arming.” The cabinet “praises the willingness of the citizens and the sons of the tribes to volunteer and carry weapons … to defend the homeland and defeat terrorism,” he said. Maliki said the cabinet also decided to “restructure and reorganize” the security forces, and to ask parliament to “announce a state of emergency.”

Hours after Maliki’s statement ISIS Jhadists also seized several areas in Kirkuk province, a police officer said, according to AFP. ISIS militants overran the Hawijah, Zab, Riyadh and Abbasi areas west of the city of Kirkuk, and Rashad and Yankaja to its south, Colonel Ahmed Taha said.

A lesson learned? If so, too late for Iraq – despite the enormous amounts of American blood and treasure invested in the country’s future. But NOT too late for American “democracy building” exercises to come. Then again, what are the odds we won’t do the disarmament disco again? As Brad Kozak likes to say, slim and none and slim just left town. [h/t Petition for redress]

Support communist/leftist authoritarian states and radical Islam over Western interests and values. If you assume that is their overall mission, then their policy is pretty consistent. I don’t know any other way to frame it that is consistent with what they have done.

We have the exact same policy that Russia had after the revolution during WWI. Completely ignore your enemy and declare the war over so you can focus on killing the middle class. Germany didn’t accept it and continued pushing into the workers paradise. Al Qaeda and the Taliban didn’t get the memo either apparently.

When they come to take over the USA, they will start in New England. Washington DC would be prime as it is almost completely disarmed. By the time they get to North Carolina, they’ll think better of it and stay in the northeast. The rest of the country won’t notice a difference… except that our taxes will go down.

There are plenty of us in NJ! My local indoor range (Woodland Park Range aka Gun For Hire) has about 750 members, and it just opened last year. Most people I know are starting to arm themselves as well; about 10 of my close friends have bought ARs, Mini 14s, Glocks and the like over the last six months or so.

I sure hope the good people of the U.S. would respond with much more obvious effect to the likes of ISIS than they have to their state and federal governments whose “troops” (law enforcement officers and agents) will kill you if you refuse to submit for the “crime” of being armed.

Note: a good person can be “guilty” of some firearm “crime” in every location, whether the “crime” is carrying a handgun openly, carrying a handgun concealed without a license, having a loaded long gun on the floor/seat of a vehicle, having a long gun whose barrel is too short, having a full auto firearm, etc.

Even though we often say things like this, the French people give Americans some of our highest favorability ratings. According to Pew Research, 75% of French citizens give the American people favorable ratings. That is 3% more than our “special” allies the Brits. The French even give American foreign policy (whatever that is) 69% favorability, 9% higher than Britain.

Because the French deliberately lied to us. They promised us their support if we went to the UN first to get approval, and then they reneged. And it all happened before 2003, when there was no majority yet in the U.S. claiming that the war was a fool’s errand. Have you forgotten the serpent-like Dominique de Villepin?

I don’t doubt that Mr Hussein had weapons programs that were not discovered subsequent to the American-led imposition of Shia rule on Iraq, but really, who cares? Did they threaten you? Did they threaten France? Did they threaten America? Did they threaten real American allies (Saudi Arabia does not count- nor does Israel given how much money America has given her towards her nuclear weapons research over the years).

No we are “bitter” for France after saving their asses twice (OK once if our involvement in a fool’s errand called WW1 was payment for their help during the Revolutionary War) and than snubbing us and the rest of NATO by withdrawing from NATO’s integrated military and leadership structures in 1966 but expecting we still race to her defense in the face of a Soviet invasion through the Fulda Gap. No, by 2003, we fully expected France to remain buddies with Saddam, after all he owed France lots of oil payments. I say, you Europeans(?) need to know your own history better.

What ass-saving? Did America not intervene in a war that was supposed to have started for the freedom of Poland (where the ‘enemy’ killed far less Poles than America’s ‘allies’ die)- by sending billions of dollars of equipment and sacrificing the lives of many men, to support a power which occupied Poland after that war?

If you really think it’s better to have a truly evil outcome, than to allow the Krauts to win in a decent manner, then you have a pretty sad worldview.

In the latest elections to the ‘European Parliament’ (admittedly, a protest vote, because the ‘parliament’ is actually ruled by the unelected ‘European Commission’) the only French patriotic party won more votes than any other.

Admittedly, 25% isn’t a lot, but it’s a hell of a lot more votes than any party that opposes the Islamisation of Britain or America has ever won, anywhere.

While guns can’t motivate someone to commit violence, they also cannot motivate someone to defend a regime they don’t like. The soon to be unemployed Iraqi prime minister would be just as screwed if everyone in Iraq were armed-because , ultimately, they culturally prefer radical Islam.

What’s the percentage on secret state supported dictators vs. secret state supported dictators who faced the rope? I doubt his chances are worse than those he’d face playing Russian roulette with a Lefaucheux 20-round.

Duh. If you give arms to a timid or apathetic population, you might as well cast pearls before swines. But if they are willing to fight, than an armed citizenry can and will always make the difference.

Americans think other folks around the globe live in culture of democracy. Citizens in the sand box are in the save themselves and the family game because government (whatever form) been crapping on them since birth.

Iraqi Army fails and now Mac wants to arm civilians…well behind the curve on that offer since 500K pulled chocks and left.

Leaves in to question, WTF did we do for 10 years and all our effort, values, & political culture is lost on a region that, giving the opportunity…failed. If Iraqi’s can’t muster enough gunslingers to squash a convoy of thugs, then we wasted our time, treasure, and blood.

The game of ‘save yourself and your family’ game is not one that is played in the Mid East, to the extent that it would take hold in the West in a general societal collapse.

Over there, a clearer hierachy of yourself- your children- your parents- your uncles- your first cousins- and so on in ad infinitum exists. Why? Because they have been inbreeding for centuries, as our people have been outbreeding for centuries. There is no ‘cultural’ solution to this. It will always be this way over there unless rule is imposed upon them by force, which is unnecessary. They just need to stay away from here, and noone will be hurt.

I completely agree. The Iraqis are well enough armed, but they are not united. Family, tribe, town. Nothing else matters. Add in the religious conflict between the Shi’ia and the Sunni, and Maliki’s mistreatment of the Sunni majority, there is no support in the eastern part of the country for the “government.” The only place where the ISIS will gain little ground is in the northern autonomous Kurdish areas, which are united in a large tribal area there and extending into northern Syria and eastern Turkey, although resistance should stiffen as there are incursions into the more Shi’ia dominated areas where the people will support the government out of fear of religious persecution by the ISIS if they do not. Iran will even send troops if asked. Perhaps it is time to start redrawing the lines in the sand that have artificially divided peoples since the British and the French designated artificial boundaries.

Family, tribe, and town sound like solid, deeply natural allegiances to me. What’s not so solid or natural is a connection to nation, especially when the national connection is based on things like television and other popular entertainment. I’d rather the Iraqis were splintered at the national level but connected to each other on the local level, rather than nationally homogenized as so many Americans have been. A confederacy for the purpose of defense and economic agreement might be the best way for Iraq to go.

“There’s only one way to make a society safe from tyranny/fascism/dictatorial control/whatever: arm the citizens. ”

And also do what our parents and grandparents did to the losers in WW2:

COMPLETELY DEFEAT YOUR ENEMY to the point of total destruction, and more importantly, COMPLETE DENAZIFICATION.

And our failures on both those tasks since 9/11 are not of our troops, but of their leaders and our testicle deprived politicians who have been bending over and spreading them for the Left* since Vietnam.

(*These scum over-running Iraq today are the allies of the American Left, as they both detest and want to exterminate the Judeo-Christian Capitalist West).

I’ve read the Bible (wanted to see what all the fuss was about) and Jesus definitely did not advocate the concept of total war. In fact, JC reportedly said, “I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

Nonetheless, it seems that total war brought Germany and Japan around to our way of thinking. I’m not a pacifist, and I don’t believe most of what’s in the Bible, but Fanfare_ends indicated that he cared about Christian values, yet he advocated behavior against the teachings of Christ. He also said that American liberals (which might be me) are in allegiance with Al Qaeda. I don’t appreciate that comment.

Man. I sure am glad thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died so they could switch dictators in Baghdad. But hey, Iraq now trades oil in dollars, not Euros (which was the only discernable purpose of the war), so as long as that continues, everything is cool.

Yes, and let’s all thank G*d for all the Iraqi refugees settled in America because they helped American forces against some tribal enemy. No way that they, or any of their relatives, will ever participate in a terrorist attack.

I am highly suspect of this, when I was there in 05, every household was authorized to keep 1 ak-47 each. Arming the populace means nothing if they’re not willing to use it. That country is full of people who are only loyal to whomever offers them the most dinars on any given day.

Pretty much sums it up. Letting everyone have a gun to defend their family and property is pointless when the OTHER guys offer you money to kill whitey AND let you keep your property. In some of the poorest countries on earth, which wins? “Free gun to protect yourself because we can’t”… OR… “Money to kill someone else and a promise not to harm you”?

And to think we ARMED all the REBELS again , thinking they would be good rebels and do the USA’s will . Why does this dumb State Dept. policy always seem to fail? Because they planed it .It’s never about winning.,but about building a NEW WORLD ORDER….Awake AMERIKA!

I don’t know how many times I have to say this before the United States military industrial complex and its political benefactors get it. There’s only one way to make a society safe from tyranny/fascism/dictatorial control/whatever: arm the citizens.

Oh they get it. They completely understand. The real question is: Do they want us armed?

So much operation Iraqi “freedom.”

If all the Iraqis were armed they could repel hostile forces (eg. Americans)

SC already has PTR Industries, Ithaca is on it’s way, TN about to get Beretta, KY the Freedom Group. Think our Governor is the only woman Gov too get a Beretta long gun for Christmas. My wife’s getting a new Glock for our anniversary tomorrow (17). Converted a Newark, NJ left winger. Day trip too VA will be fun visit some old friends, target practice. Our son would love it.

So I looked up the stats on gunpolicy.org. Apparently about 9,000,000 owned firearms (both legally and illicitly owned). The country has a population of 35.8 Million. Are we sure that civilians are totally disarmed or that gun control is stringent there?

I honestly don’t know anymore. Maybe Iraqis are armed but they feel that their government is run by douches so there is no need to defend them. It probably won’t even make a difference in their lives who runs their government, it seems like we always cared more than they did or they would have overthrown Hussein themselves.

That’s a canard. We would have gotten a lot of fat oil contracts a lot easier by dealing with Saddam rather than going to war. We went to war in spite of the sacrifice of treasure and economic opportunity.

Man it pisses me off to think of all the people we lost in Mosul after the surge. We lost lots soldiers securing Mosul only to see it run by terrorist several year years later.
Oh, and Mosul is full of cowards. Even if they had guns, they won’t fight the terrorist. A house with several young men would be next door to a house full of foreign insurgents and they wouldn’t do a thing about it. What do you think would happen in the US if a house full of foreigners moved into your neighborhood and started blowing people up. They wouldn’t last long here. To hell with them.

As far as I can tell, the Kurds are the only ones in Iraq fit to govern themselves. Insurgents who tried to go into Kurdish controlled areas didn’t last long. There are some fantastic Iraqi people, but for the most part, they now have the government they have earned through their own weakness and submission. Sad.

Mosul is a Sunni city. Why would they care about ‘freedom’ for anyone, let alone people not of their tribe? If Western lives were sacrificed for a freedom the people of the towel do not want, it is not their fault. It is the fault of Western leaders. Kill them.

I remember having a conversation – well, OK, argument – with a coworker when we were setting up the Green Zone. I finally got it through to him that the people in that area of the world had never been loyal to anyone but their family and clan head man, and it had been that way since before they erected the first tent in the sand. There are still blood feuds ongoing that have been active for more than 500 years.

The simple idea of a “country” with borders is absurd to a people that pulls up stakes (literally) whenever they please and moseys over the next dune to see what’s there. Central Government? Huh??? Democracy? It’s like trying to explain nuclear technology to a stone age people.

OIF was nothing more than a chance for the service academy grads to test their plans and play with their toyz. Post OIF Iraq was just a gigantic experiment in Democratic Socialism sponsored by the State Department, oil companies, and defense contractors.

People were making obscene profits inside the wire, and stealing staggering amounts of money and goods throughout the logistic pipeline. I KNEW it would fail; I didn’t think it would be this soon or this quick. Pull out the head men in fatigues and the blood feuds start all over again. You cannot deny history.

Fuck ’em, there’s no way to stop this, short of an absolute war on Islam. I’m talking literally wiping all of its followers from the face of the Earth. Nothing short will secure the middle east. Since such a thing is impossible, we should just abandon that region of the world completely. Oh wait, we can’t, because we’re unwilling to drill for domestic oil or investigate nuclear energy and a serious distribution grid for electric vehicles.

Let’s continue on then, and cross our fingers for the best, hope they won’t sucker punch us all over again in the next ten years – now that the entire Islamic world has substantially grown in extremism over the past decade, making such a thing far more likely.

They simply need to be kept out of here. Will their Western-university trained scientists develop nuclear technology? Oh wait.. in a sensible world, they would not be trained here.

Will genuine ‘home grown terrorists’ cause problems? No, because the old ‘home grown terrorists’ who are really Pakistanis or Somalis living in the West will not be here, so they will not found mosques or proselytize in prisons, so they will not come into contact with our own home grown losers and convert them.

There is no need for genocide. We don’t need the shitty countries Muslims live in, and we don’t need them. We just need to allow them to go their own way.

and now watch the price of oil/gas sky rocket. and oil profits will sky rocket too. and Amerikans can not wait to vote in Hillary Clinton and collect more food stamps/welfair payments. They will rush to vote away their liberty . count on it……and Hilary was the one to arm the rebels and sent billions in aid also…GOD HELP US.

People often forget how bad a dude Saddam was. The Basques were admirers of the Nazis, and to some extent patterned their operation after Hitler’s. If the US military was to get involved anywhere at all, Iraq should have been high on the list by any criterion I find reasonable.

This issue here is that we have already paid dearly to oust Saddam, but Obama is just throwing away all the gains we have made. So was Saddam better than ISIS for US interests and safety? Quite possibly. But that choice wasn’t forced on us by circumstances. That choice was made by Obama.

There was no reason to make any bad choices in 2002. Hawks in Washington wanted to go to war and they drummed up support from the ignorant masses by waving flags and making nationalistic speeches. The invasion of Afghanistan made some sense, but the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. We removed a dictator while continuing to support dictatorships elsewhere, notably in Saudi Arabia, the home country of the 911 hijackers.

That choice also was made by Bush, not to mention the majority of American citizens. A Status of Forces Agreement was established while Bush was president and set a deadline for US troop withdrawal at the end of 2011.

As for “throwing away all the gains we have made,” what are you talking about? What gains?

Thousands of American soldiers and those of our allies were killed or maimed as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Bush & Company reminded the world that our leaders cannot be trusted to provide accurate information. And we greatly strengthened Iran.

There were no gains, just losses. A Republican administration made that call (along with a lot of lily-livered Democrats who went along with them).

“was Saddam better than ISIS for US interests and safety? Quite possibly.”
How many killings of real human beings has Iraqi intelligence been responsible since the first WTC bombing, vs. ISIS? That guess shouldn’t be hard to make for anyone with half a brain.

“The Basques were admirers of the Nazis, and to some extent patterned their operation after Hitler’s.”
Well, that makes Saddam not very politically correct. And his killings of Commies and Islamist extremists make him a target for overthrow in favour of Islamist extremists why?

This is what I have been predicting for years, and getting flak for saying, and it will happen in Afghanistan as well, if we pull out of there completely. Now IRAN is sending aide to ISIS and pledging up to 10,000 soldiers to help “free” Iraq. ISIS and IRAN are Sunni Muslims with centuries of scores to settle with the Shiites (the Iraqi American-puppet Government in Baghdad).
We are screwed, as Al-Qaeda will be exporting terrorists against us across our virtually open borders within a year, and they have a decade plus of scores to settle with us. I do not believe the Obama Administration will move quickly enough or decisively enough to stop the takeover of Iraq by a Muslim extremist group considered by some “too radical even for Al-Qaeda” and their Iranian Allies.
Stock up on Ammo and hold on to your guns and your butts! You might want to look into homeschooling for your children, too, as our undefended public schools will likely be among the first Jihadist targets…being “Gun Free Zones” and all….
Yep, this is what happens to a disarmed populace, but in Iraq’s case it might be a little more complicated and more potentially dangerous in the outcome.

Sorry. But I think you’ll find that the government and most of the populace of Iran is Shia.
.
Iran is helping the Maliki (Shia) government to fight the ISIS, who are Sunni and are strict adherents to Sharia law as they interpret it. They are so radical, Al Qaida disowned them. They are the former Al Qaida in Iraq bunch that were thrown out of Fallujah by the U.S. with the help of the local populace.
.

You are correct about ISIS and others sending terrorists to hit us where we live, though. And the reaction of current admin will be completely predictable: Further militarization and expansion of Federal and local law enforcement, further erosion of basic civil liberties, stepped up efforts to disarm the American population. Basically, use the disasters they themselves facilitated to make gains in the war on their REAL enemy, the United States of America. Sadly, there will be no shortage of Republicans cheering them on.

All too true, especially that last line. I have learned over the past 15 years, to my dismay, how the people’s good-faith patriotism can be manipulated into support for increasingly tyrannical measures by the “government.” The greater danger, however, is not what people can be persuaded to support, but what they can be distracted from. Many Republicans supported the War on Terror, and therefore failed to oppose the measures Bush was taking to increase the power of the federal government in education, in entitlement programs, and in overall regulation and spending.

@MothaLova
“The greater danger, however, is not what people can be persuaded to support, but what they can be distracted from.” You nailed that one squarely, my friend! I agree with your other points, too, but this one is outstanding! So true, but sad at the same time…

@ Old Ben Turning in His Grave, Thanks. I am concerned that your analysis of using “manufactured crises” to disarm and repress the American People is spot on. There is an Executive Order on the books that would allow Obama to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution, seize ANY property that may be useful to “National Defense”, relocate American Citizens and “assign” Americans to labor, as needed. Obama’s lawlessness is becoming a crisis in itself and it is not too far a stretch to believe he may use an outbreak of terrorist attacks to declare a “National Emergency”. The only saving grace may be if the Military refuses to go along with it. He has disaffected them, but it’s a question that would be answered only when and if it happens.
I also agree the Republicans are as guilty of complicity in all this as anyone. I made myself very unpopular back in 2003 predicting this was a wrong move and would turn out a bloody and costly disaster. I accepted we needed to go into Afghanistan owing to it being Al-Qaeda’s Base of Operations, but thought it might be a debacle in the end, as well.
We may be screwed by Muslim Jihadi’s in the near future, but worse by our own Government.

Dick G. is right and I apologize for misstating who is helping who in Iraq. I got my facts mixed up and misspoke.
The Shiites (Shi’s) are the majority in Iran with Sunni’s amounting to about 9% of the Iranian population, and being persecuted rutinely by the majority Shiites. Iran is sending help to Maliki’s Govt in Baghdad, as Maliki has mistreated and excluded the Sunni’s since his Govt was formed. If Iran succeeds in helping Maliki’s Govt push back ISIS and forms a dependence on Iran, it will be bad for the West. Al-Qaeda is probably hoping for that.

I don’t expect this remark matters to anyone, but me. Nonetheless, I offer it as an acknowledgement in the interest of honesty.

I still maintain Afghanistan will fall back to the Taliban, if the U.S. withdraws completely. If Iraq and Iran form some sort of alliance, that will be bad for for the U.S. and may embolden Iran to assist the Taliban in trying to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan to give Al-Qaeda a base to operate, train and export terrorists from. Al-Qaeda wants revenge on the U.S. for Osama bin Ladin’s death and our Drone Strikes against them. Revenge is a big thing to the radical Muslims and we should expect nothing less. Never forget these people believe a suicide attack on an enemy of Islam is a direct ticket to their version of Paradise and Martyrdom. This could be very bad for the U.S..

>> I still maintain Afghanistan will fall back to the Taliban, if the U.S. withdraws completely. If Iraq and Iran form some sort of alliance, that will be bad for for the U.S. and may embolden Iran to assist the Taliban in trying to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan to give Al-Qaeda a base to operate, train and export terrorists from.

You are still confused. Taliban are radical (Salafi/Wahhabi) Sunni. They are not supported by Iran, because they hate Shia and persecute them where they find that, and that hatred is mutual. The countries that would support Taliban are (Sunni-majority & ruled) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, long term US “allies”.

From the perspective of securing the region, the best thing to do would actually ditch SAR and Pakis and let Iran take over. Their version of Islam is less radical – in particular, unlike radical Sunni, they do not subsume their national identity in their religious one. An Iranian is still Iranian first, and Muslim second. They don’t much like the “internationalist” aspect of Islam that is so popular among Arab preachers. They will reach out to fellow Shia in other countries, sure, but they don’t want to take over the world, like radical Sunni (Qutbists, al-Qaeda, ISIL etc) dream of.

If you look at how people live in each country, you’ll see in fact that Iran is the closest to a civilized state in the region. They have industry and commerce, a functioning economy, plenty of universities and scientific institutes (and don’t have restriction on education for females). The younger folk in the cities are increasingly secular and flout traditional Islamic morality and code of conduct, pushing the law to its limits. They will grow out of their present state into a secular society soon enough. That’s the important part – their direction of growth is in the right way, from reactionary to progressive. Radical Sunnis, be it Salafi Taliban or Wahhabi House of Saud, are headed the other way – back into the caves. When faced with a choice between the two, the choice should be obvious.

You obviously know a fair amount about the region, but I think your analysis of Revolutionary Iran is too sanguine. Their aims have always been not only domination but the elimination of Israel and everything else remotely Western and the full imposition of Shia sharia. Although Iran’s leaders are more calculating than the brutes in Al Qaeda, I don’t see anything in their fundamental principles that suggests moderation. They will say things that we want to hear – that is, they can operate strategically, unlike Al Qaeda – but Khomeini was clear from the beginning about the ultimate goals and the mullahs still support his vision.

I was in Baghdad in 05-06, in the middle of the civil war. We spent a couple weeks going door-to-door in our AO. Every damn house, people home or not. We confiscated handguns, SMGs, shotguns, antiques, home-made stuff, anything not AK-47. They were allowed to keep an AK and a couple magazines. They are definitely an armed populace.

17 trillions debt, unsustanaible fiat currency, banks too big to fail, FED, NSA with massive spying, TFA, DEA stupid war on drugs that only make things worse and feeds the prison complex, the military complex always demanding more money to delivery less and less, executive orders more common than ever, highly internvenionist and illogical foreing policy that supports Al Quaeda in Syria and fights it in other parts of the world.

The lesson is clear, allow yourself to be disarmed and roving bands of armed thugs will rule the day at some point. The flavor of thug may vary depending on your locale…islamist, communist, fascist, racist, others?

In the US today most believe they need to fear a good old fashioned fascist but times are changing. 90,000 have entered the US illegally in the past month according to some reports. Potentially hundreds of thousands quietly and illegally entering in the past year. It doesn’t require a tin foil hat to believe that not all of these people are woman & children on the run from the drug lords in Honduras/Mexico/Guetemala. Islamist soldiers and sympathizers are very likely streaming into this country daily. As several have stated above, sadly it is just a matter of time before the violence lands here.

Who disarmed them? They were allowed full-auto AK’s when I was there. If they had RPG’s we were allowed to take them away, but it was not a shoot-on-sight situation. If anything, you could say they were not armed enough. Watch and learn, and re-study your Task-Force-Troy pamphlets.